Ron, I believe your statement is wrong. The WG has expressed strong preference for a single data plane solution.
From the chairs emails: “Given that the working group has said that it wants to standardize one data plane solution …” “There is a rough (quite clear) consensus for standardizing one dataplane solution…” I hope we all agree that RFC8986 is not defining 36 different dataplane solutions. 😉 Cheers, Pablo. From: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> Sent: martes, 5 de octubre de 2021 17:38 To: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <pcama...@cisco.com>; James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org> Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org Subject: RE: WG Adoption call for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/ Pablo, The WG has expressed a strong preference for having a single compression *behavior*. Why is it OK to ignore that preference because RFC 8986 has 36 different behaviors? Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 1:32 PM To: James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com<mailto:james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>>; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>> Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:spring-cha...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption call for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/ RFC8986 already defines 36 different behaviors. This document, CSID, is a single SRv6-based solution that only defines additional behaviors with the next and replace flavors.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
